Indo-European Nominal O-Stems and Question of Their Origin

2015 lingua posnaniensis LVII (2)

DOI: 10.1515/linpo-2015-0007

articles

Indo-European nominal o-stems and question of their origin

Václav Blažek

Department of Linguistics and Baltic Studies, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno [email protected]

Abstract: Václav Blažek. Indo-European nominal o-stems and question of their origin. The Poznań Society for the Advancement of Arts and Sciences, PL ISSN 0079-4740, pp. 7-16 In the article the most productive formation of the Indo-European nominal declension, the o-stems, are described and analyzed. Two competing interpretations are discussed. One of them is finally preferred with respect to external typological parallels. Keywords: Indo-European morphology, nominal declension, pronominal declension, ergative syntax, postpositive determination

1. The so-called thematic inflection is limited only to nouns extended by the vowel -o- (with only exception in the voc. sg. in -e-), the so-called o-stems. If it is not indicated otherwise, in the table 1 the continuants of the IE words *u̯ ĺ̥ku̯ o- “wolf” and *i̯ ugó- “yoke” are cited (Table 1-2).

Table 1

Singular Vedic Hittite Greek Latin OIrish Gothic Lith. OCS. IE nom. vr̥ ́kas ishā̆ s λύκος6 lupus14 fer24 wulfs34 vilkas̃ vlъkъ *-os “lord” vok. vr̥ ́ka1 ishā̆ λύκε lupe15 fir25 wulf vilkẽ vlъče *-e acc. vr̥ ́kam ishān λύκον7 lupum16 fer26 wulf35 vilką̃ 40 vlъkъ *-om nom.-acc. n. yugám yugan ζυγόν8 iugum17 scél27 juk; ORun. horna “horn” Pr. igo *-om lunkan41 gen. ishās4 ORun. -as36 Pr. -as42 *-os vr̥ ́kasya λύκοιο9 -osio18 ?-oiso28 wulfis37 = abl. = abl. *-os-i̯ o lupī19 fir29 *-ī46 abl. vr̥ ́kād antuhset5 e-ko-me-no10 lupō20 CIb. -uð30 vilkõ 43 vlъka42 *-ōd < *-o-ed47 dat. vr̥ ́kāya2 ishī λύκωι11 lupō21 fiur31 ORun. -ai38 vilkuĩ vlъku *-ōi̯ < *-o-ei̯ loc. vr̥ ́ke ishī οἴκοι12 domī22 CIb. -ei32 dat. wulfa vilkè44 vlъcě *-oi̯ < *-o-i 3 13 23 33 39 45 inst. vr̥ ́keṇa a-to-ro-qo lupō CIb. -u dat. wulfa vilkù vlъkomь *-oH1 < *-o-H1 See Beekes 1995, 190-192; GHL 79-83; Szemerényi 1996, 182-188. 8 Václav Blažek LP LVII (2)

Notes: 1) Absence of palatalization of the velar is explainable via paradigmatic levelling. 2) The final -a is a particle (Beekes 1995: 192). 3) Adapted from the pronominal inflection, cf. the instr. sg. of demonstratives ena, téna, eténa, interrogative kéna, relative yéna, reflexive svéna (Macdonell 1916[2000]: 77, 106-112). 4) It corresponds to the gen. ending of other inflectional types. In the Luwian supbranch the genitive is replaced by so-called possessive adjectives, formed by the suffix -assi- in Cuneiform Luwian and -asi- in Hieroglyphic Luwian. Szemerényi (1996: 184, 187; following Mittelberger) derived them from the o-stem gen. in *-os-i̯ o. Melchert (2012) adds relics in Hittite, e.g. genušša/i- “knee(-joint)”, šakuwašša- “deity of the eye”. 5) The instr. sg. from antuhsas “man”. The abl. sg. has the ending -az. 6) Cf. Myc. wo-no /woinos/ “vine”. 7) Cf. Myc. w to-ro-qo /trok on/ “strap” or wo-i-ko-de, wo-ko-de /woikon-de/ “in the house”. 8) Cf. Myc. e-ra3-wo /elaiwon/ “olive oil”. 9) Cf. Myc. do-e-ro-jo /do(h)elojjo/ “servant”. 10) Myc. toponym, which may preserve the abl. sg. in /-ō/. 11) Cf. Myc. a-to-ro-qo /anthrōkwōi/, cf. Gr. ἄνθρωπος “man” 12) Att. “at home”; cf. the Myc. toponym pu-ro /pulōi/ “in Pylos”. 13) Myc. /anthrōkwō/ (notes 6-13: see Bartoněk 2003: 188-210 & Hajnal 1995: 23-24). 14) Cf. OLat. equos (Plautus), duenos (CIL I, 4), further Fal. Kaios, Ven. Voltiiomnos, Osc. húrz “grove”, SPic. meitims “gift”? 15) Cf. Fal. Uoltene, Umb. Šerfe, Osc. ϝατοϝε. 16) Cf. OLat. manom “hand”, Fal. vinom “vine”, Ven. ekvon “horse”, Osc. húrtúm, dolom “intent”, SPic. meitimúm. 17) Cf. OLat. donom “gift”, Fal. duenom “good”, Ven. donom & donon “gift”, osk. sakaraklúm, vol. pihom “of pious”. 18) Cf. OLat. Popliosio Valesiosio = class. Lat. ‘Publii Valerii’ (Lapis Satricanus, 500 BC), Fal. Kaisiosio. 19) Cf. OLat. Aisclapi (CIL I, 440), argentī (Plautus) “of silver” (adj.), Fal. Marci, Ven. louki “of sacred grove”. 20) Cf. OLat. fileod“to son”, Osc. sa- karaklúd “to sanctuary”. 21) Cf. OLat. Numasioi duenoi, later Aiscolapio, Fal. Kaisioi, Ven. murtuvoi “to dead”, Osc. húrtúi, SPic. brímeqlúí. 22) Lat. “in homeland”, lit. “at home”; cf. Osc. húrteí. 23) In the form of the typ lupō three cases merged: dative, ablative & instrumental sg.; cf. also Ven. instr. Voltiio (notes 14-23: see Meiser 1998: 134-135; UB 228-230). 24) Goid. *u̯ iros “man”; cf. CIb. ueiðos “witness”, Gl. tarvos “bull”, Lep. Alkoui- nos, Ulkos. 25) Goid. *u̯ ire, cf. Gl. (Lezoux) nate “oh, son!” (LG 143). 26) Goid. *u̯ irom; cf. CIb. elaðunom, Gl. (Alise) celicnon “hall”, but (Larzac) brictom “magic”. 27) OIir. scél “message” < *sku̯ etlom (LEIA, S 39-40); cf. CIb. Belikiom, Lep. uinom “vine”, Gl. (Chamalières) ollon “all”, meíon “small”. 28) Lep. gen. sg. Xosioiso. Me- tathesis? 29) Goid. *u̯ irī, Ogam maqqi “of son”; cf. Gl. (Couchey) Segomari, (Todi) Trutikni, Lep. Aśkoneti, but CIb. -o in karuo etc. 30) CIb. Usamuð. 31) Goid. *u̯ irū; cf. CIb. ueiðui, Lep. Pelkui, Gl. (Cavaillon) βαλαυδουι & (Couchey) Alisanu. 32) CIb. kortonei, Gl. -e: uo duno derce “under the barrow”, in Alixie “in Alesia”. 33) CIb. auku, Gl. sunartiu “by good strength” (notes 24-33: see Lejeune 1971: 467; LG 51-56; MLH 396-400). 34) Cf. ORun. laukaz “garlic”. 35) Cf. ORun. staina “stone”. 36) ORun. Godagas. 37) Gmc. *-eso, adapted from the pronominal inflection, cf. Goth. ƕis “what”, þis “that”, OCS. česo “what”. 38) Cf. ORun. hahai. 39) Cf. the instr. sg. in OSas. dagu, OHG. tagu “by day”. 40) Cf. Prus. deiwan “god”. 41) Prus. “bast”. 42) Prus. deiwas. 43) *-ād as in the ā-stems (cf. Szemerényi 1996: 183). 44) Diphthong remains petrified in some adverbs asL ith. namiẽ “at home”, Prus. bītai “in the evening”. 45) After other inflectional patterns (Erhart 1982: 120). The original ending, which should be *-a, may be fossilized in the interrogative & relative OCS. adv. kogda, kъgda “when”, if it is a compound of the pronominal root *ko-, *kъ-, and the word godъ “time” (Wiedmann apud Brugmann 1911: 189). 46) Cf. also Alb. et “of father” < *attī : nom. atë; Toch. A Mahiśvari “Mahiśvari’s”, maybe also the genitive of kinship terms as A pācri, B pātri “of father” (Klingenschmitt 1992: 98-104). 47) Only the abl. sg. of the o-stems differs from the gen. sg., in other inflectional classes the gen. & abl. sg. merge (with exception of Italic languages, Celtiberian and Anatolian languages, where the dental ablative was extended in other inflectional classes). Its origin has been sought in the pronominal ablative of the type Ved. mad, OLat. (also acc.) med (Praeneste), mēd (Plautus), Fal. med, met, similarly OLat. ted & sed, and perhaps Gl. *med & *sed in the syntagms to-med-ec-lai (Voltino, North Italy), met-ingi-set-ingi “between me and between her” (Châteaubleau; see Lambert 2001: 112).

The ending is identified with the particle*ad < *H2ed (Dunkel, Sihler etc.) or *eti ~ *oti < *H1eti ~ *H1oti (Neu, Tichy etc.), see Szemerényi 1996, 187. LP LVII (2) Indo-European nominal o-stemsand question of their origin 9

Table 2

Plural Vedic Hittite Greek Latin OIrish Gothic Lith. OCS. IE nom. vr̥ ́kās ishēs OU. -us9 wulfos24 *-ōs < *-o-es λύκοι3 lupī10 fir16 vilkaĩ29 vlъci *-oi̯ acc. vr̥ ́kān1 EN.MEŠ-us λύκους4 lupōs11 firu17 wulfans vilkùs30 vlъky35 *-oms 5 12 18 25 nom.-acc. n. yugā́ ζυγά iuga scél(a) juka Prus. iga *-(e)H2 CIb. -a19 warto31 gen. vr̥ ́kānām2 siunan λύκων6 lupōrum13 fer20 -o/-a26 vilkų̃32 vlъkъ *-ō̆ m < *-o-om “of gods” ishās wulfe27 dat.-abl. vr̥ ́kebhyas -oibos14 fer(a)ib21 wulfam28 vilkáms33 vlъkomъ *-oi̯ -bh/m- ishas *-oi̯ -os? loc. vr̥ ́keṣu ishas λύκοισι7 lupīs15 -ei22 vilkuosè34 vlъcěxъ *-oi̯ -su inst. vr̥ ́kais λύκοις8 lupīs15 -uis/-us23 vilkaĩs vlъky36 *-ō̆ i̯ s37

See Beekes 1995: 192; Fortson 2004: 113-116; Szemerényi 1996: 183-88. Notes: 1) Long -ā- after the nom. pl. -ās. Better is preserved the acc. pl. in OAv. mašiiǝ̣ ̄ ṇg, mašiiąs-cạ̄ “man” o (*”mortal”) < *marti̯ anh, ans-ca; cf. Ved. mártiyān, mártiyāṁś-ca (Hoffmann & Forssman 1996: 120). 2) Influ- ence of the n-stems. The primary gen. pl. is preserved e.g. in the syntagm dévāñ janma “race of gods” (Szemeré- nyi 1996: 185). 3) Cf. Myc. o-no /onoi/ “donkeys”. 4) The ending of the acc. pl. is preserved in Arg. υἱόνς “sons”;

Myc. si-a2-ro /sihalons/ : Gr. nom. sg. σίαλος “fat hog”. 5) Cf. Myc. do-ra /dōra/ : Gr. δῶρον“gift”. 6) Cf. Myc. e-ra-po /elaphōn/ : Gr. ἔλαφος “deer”. 7) cf. Myc. te-o-i /the(h)oi(h)i/ : θεός “god”. 8) cf. Myc. de-so-mo / desmois/ : Gr. δεσμός “strap” (notes 3-8: see Bartoněk 2003: 188-210; Hajnal 1995: 23-24). 9) Osc. Núvlanús, SPic. Safinús, Umb. Ikuvinu. 10) Cf. OLat. peploe, besides epigraphic Virei. 11) Cf. OLat. deivos, Ven. deivos, Osc. feíhúss, Umb. vitluf. 12) Cf. Umb. iuku & iuka. 13) Adapted from the pronominal inflection:o ōrum < *-ūsom < *-oi̯ -s-ō̆ m, cf. the Vedic demonstrative téṣām, OCS. těxъ. The nominal gen. pl. is preserved in OLat. deom, Ven. Oterginon, Pael. Cerfum, CPic. Safinúm, Osc. Núvlanúm. 14) Ven. ekvoibos, besides louderobos. 15) In Lat. the dat.-abl. pl. of o-stems in -īs merged with two other cases, the loc. pl. in *-oi̯ -su, and instr. pl. in *-oi̯ s. The diphthong is also preserved in OLat. qurois, poplois, Pael. puclois, Osc. feíhúís, zicolois (notes 9-15: see UB 229-230). 16) Goid. *u̯ irī; cf. Gl. (Brioni) Tanotaliknoi, (Mailly-le-Camp) ταουτανοι & (Saint-Germain) Aresequani, Lep. Kasiloi, CIb. Alaboi. The original nom. pl. in *-ōs was preserved in OIrish voc. pl. firu

Maybe, it is the instr. sg. in *-oH1 extended by non-singular *-oi̯ - and pluralizing -s (otherwise Erhart 1982: 98; Szemerényi 1985: 519-520). Besides the singular and plural the Indo-European protolanguage also differentiated the dual, although this category was not preserved in all daughter branches. E.g. in old literary Germanic languages the dual disappeared from the nominal morphology, but remained in the pronominal and verbal systems. In Latin the traces of the dual are preserved only in the 10 Václav Blažek LP LVII (2) numerals duo (duō by Plautus), duae, duo “two”, and ambō, -ae,-ō “both”. In the Anato- lian branch the traces of dual have been sought in designations of the pair body parts, e.g. Hitt. sakuwa “eyes”, Luw. aruta “wings”, issara “hands”, pata “feet” (Krasuxin 2004: 133; Szemerényi 1996: 161). Thanks to homonymy of endings the dual paradigm is less rich in comparison with plural even in those languages, where the dual was preserved (Table 3).

Table 3

Dual Vedic Avestan Greek Old Irish Lith. OCS. IE 3 7 nom.-acc. m.f. vr̥ ́kā, vr̥ ́kau spādā λύκω fer < *u̯ irā vilkù vlъka *-o-H1 4 8 11 nom.-acc. n. yugé š́iiaoθnōi ζυγώ scél i(d)zě *-o-iH1 ̊ 5 12 gen. = loc. ąsaiiā = loc. fer < *u̯ irou̯ dvíejaus = loc. *-oi̯ -H1ōs 1 6 9 12 loc. vr̥ ́kayos zastaiiō λύκοιιν dvíejau vlъku *-oi̯ -H1ou̯ 6 h dat.-abl.-inst. vr̥ ́kābhyām zastōibiiā fer(a)ib < *-oi̯ -b i̯ oH1 aśvebhyām2 aspaēbiiā2 *u̯ irobim

vilkám vlъkoma *-o-moH1 10 h instr. o-mo-pi vilkam̃ *-o-b /miH1

See Beekes 1995: 194-195; Brugmann 1911: 282-283; Hoffmann & Forssman 1996; Szemerényi 1996: 183-185.

Notes: 1) *-oi̯ -H1ou̯ + -s perhaps after the gen. 2) “horse”. 3) OAv. spāda- “army”. 4) OAv. š́iiaoθna- “action”, cf. YAv. saite “200”, duiie, duuaē-ca “2”. 5) OAv. ąsa- “share”. 6) OAv. zasta- “hand”. 7) Cf. Myc. po-ro /pōlō/ “two foals”. 8) Ending of the m.-f. du. 9) Rix (1976, 141): *-oi̯ sin after the dat.-loc. pl. *-oi̯ si with the final nasal after the instr. du. *-oi̯ -bhim; otherwise Beekes (1995: 195): *-oi̯ -Hu-m? 10) Myc. /oimophi/ : Gr. οἶμος “bundle” (Hajnal 1995: 23). 11) It causes a nasalization of the following initial: maybe an identification with the ending of the nom. sg. n. *-om. More original is perhaps Gl. uercobreto (Thurneysen 1946: 182). 12) Lith. dvejì “double”. 2. Origin of the o-stems was discussed many times. Two hypotheses seem best argu- mented. 2.1. Pedersen (1907: 152) mentioned that the subject of transitive verb looks like in genitive (sigmatic case), if was active, and like in instrumental, if was inactive. On the other hand, the subject of intransitive verb and object of transitive verb were in absolutive (i.e. asigmatic) case. This asymmetry between valency of transitive and intransitive verbs is summarized in Tab 11 (see Beekes 1995, 193) (Table 4).

Table 4

Verb Nominative system Ergative system transitive verb subject nominative ergative object accusative absolutive intransitive verb subject nominative absolutive

Beekes (1985: 191-195; 1995: 193) and Kortlandt (2002: 217) develop Pedersen’s idea, assuming that the nominative syntax of old Indo-European languages was formed later and the case system of the Indo-European protolanguage is primarily based on the ergative syntaxis. The same ending of the nom. and acc. neuter designating originally inactive nouns originated from the primary absolutive, while the ergative belonged to the active subject. According to Beekes the sigmatic genitive-ablative developed from the ergative. During transformation of the ergative system into nominative one the form reconstructed as CC-R-ós became the nominative, a new case of subject. The vowel -o- had spread to other cases. Schmalstieg (1997: 401-407) and Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984: 267-91: active typol- ogy) formulated their own theories assuming the ergative past of the IE syntax. LP LVII (2) Indo-European nominal o-stemsand question of their origin 11

The implications of the ergative interpretation:

Table 5

Case Form(*) Comments in perspective of the ergative interpretation sg. nom. -ø in HD inflection and PD neuters (B 1985: 172) -s act. identical with the sigmatic gen.-abl. sg., originally ergative (B 1985: 172-195) -om inact. agens of the transitive verb (Pedersen 1907: 152; Schmalstieg 1997: 405-406: instr. of o-stems) voc. -ø see B 1985: 99-108 acc. -m originally directive-terminative (B 1985: 198) gen. -(o)s originally ergative (B 1985, 172-95); in Hitt. used in both gen. sg. & pl. (o- -osi̯ o < gen. *-os & relative *i̯ o (B 1985: 185; Nikolaev 2000) stems) -ī cf. the suffix of affiliation*-ii ̯ o- (*-iHo-?); see K 1994: 98-104; Meiser 1998: 135 abl. -os identical with the gen. sg. in *-(o)s, originally the ergative (B 1985: 172-195) (o-st.) -(o/e)t/d(i) cf. also Hitt. -az dat. -(e)i on persons; dat. & loc. were originally one and the same case (B 1995: 173) loc. -i on places & inactive nouns; originally identical with the dative (B 1995: 173); cf. Arm. herow, Gr. πέρυσι(ν), ON. í fjorð “last year”, OIr. ón n-urid “from last year” < *per-uti “year ago” instr. -H1 cf. instr. pl. of the o-stems *-ōi̯ s < instr. sg. *-oH1 + non-singular *-oi̯ - + pluralizing -s pl. nom. -es (o- -oi̯ plural of pronominal origin stems) -oi̯ - non-singular affix of theo -stems, preceding the case ending

-H2 inact. collective voc. = nom. acc. -ms = acc. sg. -m + pluralizing -s in congruence to the nom. pl. in -es gen. -om see Kortlandt 1978; in Hitt. used in both gen. sg. & pl.; Schmalstieg 1997: 405-406: ergative abl. -i̯ os > Arm. -ǰ, II. *-bh(i)-i̯ os dat. -mus > BSl. *-mus; Gmc. *-muz loc. -su ~ -si cf. Lat. mox, MWelsh moch “soon” < *mok-su; Alb. abl. pl. -sh: malesh “in mountains”; për-posh “down”, posh-të “below” : oposho < *pēd-si; Phryg. τευτωσι “in villages” (K 1994: 313; H 2003: 129) instr. -bhi originally probably without number distinction, cf. Gr. ἶφι “strongly”, Myc. wi-pi-no-o /Wīphi-no(h)os/, Hom. Ἰλιόφιν ... τείχεα “walls of Ilion” (Rix 1976: 158-159; Ba 2003: 274); II. dat. of personal pronouns: OAv. maibiiā, taibiiā, ahmaibiiā, yūšmaibiiā vs. Ved. túbhya(m), asmábhyam, yuṣmábhyam; OCS. dat.- loc. tebě, sebě, instr. tobojǫ, sobojǫ (see Br 1911: 187)

B = Beekes; Ba = Bartoněk; Br = Brugmann; H = Hajnal; K = Klingenschmitt. Note: Identification of non-singular morpheme *-oi̯ - and pluralizing -s imply in some cases the agglutinative structure. 2.2. Jean Haudry (1982: 36-38) formulated the idea that the o-stems originated from pronouns with determining function added to a nominal base, playing so a role of a postpositive article. For this solution there are typological parallels e.g. in Balto-Slavic languages, where the adjectives used in the attributive role are extended by the IE relative *i̯ o-/*i̯ ā-, the postpositive determination using demonstratives is living in modern Balkanian or Scan- dinavian languages. So-called mimation & nunation in Semitic languages also represent in principle the postpositive determination. In Indo-European a good candidate could be identified in theA natolian pronoun -a- of the 3rd person attested only in postposition (HEG 1-2: 6-7) (Table 6). 12 Václav Blažek LP LVII (2)

Table 6

Case Hittite Palaic C. Luwian Hier. Luwian Lydian * nom. sg. c. -as -as -as -(a)s -aś *-os nom.-acc. sg. n. -at -at -ata -(a)ta -ad, -at *-ot acc. sg. c. -an /-un -an -an -an -aν *-om nom. pl. c. -e -as *-oi̯ nom.-acc. pl. n. -e -e *-oi̯ acc. pl. c. -us *-oms acc. pl. n. -at -ata -(a)ta *-ot

3. Summarizing the preceding partial reconstructions, it is apparent, most difficult is to establish the original protoforms of the ablative, dative and instrumental plural. It is natural to suppose mutual levelling, merging, interference. These processes are concentrated to Ta- ble 7 (see Brugmann 1911: 120; Beekes 1985: 144-146), whence the following case proto- system may be postulated (Table 7), to explain the partial case systems in daughter branches.

Table 7

case IE II Arm. Gr. Messap. Italic Celtic Gmc. BSl. dat. pl. *-mus *-mus > *-mos abl. pl. *-i̯ os -ǰ2 > *-bhi̯ os -bis3 *-bhos *-bhos ins. pl. *-bhi1 *-bhis *-bhi(s) *-bhi *-bhi(s) > -bas4 *-mi5 *-mis6 *-miHs dat. pl. *-mus

Notes: 1) Probably the same suffix appears in Hitt.kuwapi “where, when” (HEG 4: 229-232). 2) Arm. -ǰ in the abl. pl. of personal pronouns mēnǰ, jēnǰ is derivable from *-i̯ os (Kortlandt 1984: 103-104 = 2003: 50; Beekes 1985: 144). 3) Messap. abl. pl. ogrebis, tatθebis, valeabis (see MLM II). 4) Messap. dat. pl. Laidehiabas, Logetibas. 5) Cf. the OIr. dat. pl. n-stems of the type anm(a)imm from ainm “name” (already Brugmann 1911: 188 thought about this solution and Hamp 1996 returned to it). 6) See WGmc. dat. pl. Vatvims & Aflims, corresponding to Lat. Vatviabus & Afliabus, and OEng. dat. pl. đǣm from the demonstrative sē̆ “that” with the i-umlaut (Brugmann 1911: 262, 264).

Table 8

Number Singular Plural Dual case / type athematic thematic athematic thematic athematic thematic nom. anim. *-s *-os *-es *-ōs < *-o-es *-H1 *-o-H1 voc. *-ø *-e *-es *-ōs < *-o-es *-H1 *-o-H1 acc. anim. *-m *-om *-ms *-oms *-H1 *-o-H1 nom.-acc. n. *-ø *-om *-H2 *-eH2 *-iH1 *-o-iH1 gen. *-s *-os(-i̯ o) *-om *-ōm *-H1ōs *-oi̯ -H1ōs abl. *-s *-ōd < *-o-ed *-i̯ os *-oi̯ -os = dat. = dat. dat. *-ei̯ *-ōi̯ < *-o-ei̯ *-mus *-oi̯ -mus *-mōH1 *-oi̯ -mōH1 loc. *-i *-oi̯ *-su *-oi̯ -su *-H1ou̯ *-oi̯ -H1ou̯ h h h h instr. *-H1 *-oH1 *-b i(s) *-oi̯ -b i(s) *-b iH1 *-oi̯ -b iH1 See Beekes 1995: 173; Fortson 2004: 113. 4. A little surprising typological and structural argument supporting one of the preceding solutions may be found outside the Indo-European language family. In the Uralic protol- LP LVII (2) Indo-European nominal o-stemsand question of their origin 13 anguage the nominative has been reconstructed as unmarked. But in several Fenno-Ugric languages a specific nominative was formed from demonstratives or demonstrative suffixes of the 3rd person according to the scenario described by Haudry in connection with the IE o-stem nominative in *-s (§ 2.2.) (Table 9).

Table 9

Language indet. sg. det. sg. indet. pl. det. pl. origin of suffix Mordvin tolga “feather” tolgaś “that f.” tolgat “feathers” tolgaťńä “those f.” śä, śe “that” : ńe “these” Udmurt iz “stone” izez “that s.” izjos “stones” izjosi̮ z “those s.” -z suffix of 3rd person sg. Komi vok “brother” voki̮ s “that b.” vokjas “brothers” vokjasi̮ z “those b.” -s suffix of 3rd person sg.

See Szinnyei 1910: 62. Summing up, from both competing hypotheses described in §2.1. and 2.2. the latter solution operating with postpositive determination seems more probable, since is supported by external typological parallels.

Abbreviations ab(l). ablative, abs. absolutive, adj. adjective, adv. adverb, advr. adverbialis, Aeol. Aeolic, acc. accusative, Alb. Albanian, act. active, Arg. Argive, arch. archaic, Arc. Arcadian, Arm. Armenian, Att. Attic, Av. Avestan, Balt. Baltic, Bret. Breton, BSl. Balto-Slavic, c. genus communis, C. Cuneiform, Celt. Celtic, CIb. Celtiberian, Cl. Clas- sic, col. collective, com. comitative, cons. consonantic, Corn. Cornish, Cret. Cretan, Cz. Czech, dat. dative, det. determined, dir. directive, Dor. Doric, du. dual, E East, Eng. English, ep. epigraphic, erg. ergative, f. feminine, Fal. Faliscan, Fi. Finnish, fin. finalis, FU. Fenno-Ugric, Ge. Georgian, gen. genitive, Gl. Gaulish, Gmc. Germanic, Goid. Goidelic, Goth. Gothic, Gr. Greek, heter. heteroclitic, Hier. Hieroglyphic, Hitt. Hittite, Hom. Homeric, id. idem, IE Indo-European, II. Indo-Iranian, inact. inactive, indet. indetermined, ins(tr). instrumental, Ir. Irish, It. Italic, Lat. Latin, Latv. Latvian, Lep. Lepontic, Lesb. Lesbian, Lith. Lithuanian, loc. locative, Luw. Luwian, Lyd. Lydian, Lyc. Lycian, m. maskuline, M Middle, Marr. Marrucine, Mars. Marsian, Messap. Messapic, Myc. My- cenaean, n. neuter, N North, nom. nominative, O Old, obl. oblique, OCS. Old Church Slavonic, OHG. Old High German, ON. Old Nordic (incl. Old Icelandic), ORun. Old Runic, Osc. Oscan, OU. Oscan-Umbrian, p- proto-, Pael. Paelignian, Phryg. Phrygian, Pic. Picenian, pl. plural, Pr(us). Prussian, pred. predicative, S South, sg. singular, Skt. Sanskrit, Sl. Slavic, soc. sociative, suf. suffix, Sx. Saxon, Syr. Syriac, term. terminative, Toch. Tocharian, tran. transformative, Umb. Umbrian, Ved. Vedic, Ven. Venetic, voc. vocative, Vol. Volscan, W West, Y Young.

Acknowledgements

The present study was prepared thanks to the grant of the The Czech Science Foundation (GAČR), GA15-12215S.

References

Adams, Douglas Q. 1999. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam–Atlanta: Rodopi. Antonsen, Elmer. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bader, Françoise. 1991. Problématique du génitif thématique sigmatique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 86(1). 89-157. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1985. The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: IBS 46. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: Benjamins. 14 Václav Blažek LP LVII (2)

Blažek, Václav. 1999. Numerals. Comparative-etymological analyses and their implications. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Blažek, Václav. 2010. Indoevropská substantivní deklinace [Indo-European declension of substantives]. Linguis- tica Brunensia 58(1-2). 51-91. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Vol. I: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Brugmann, Karl. 1906/1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, II.1/2. Strassburg: Trübner. Cólera, Carlos Jordán. 2005. Celtibérico. Zaragoza: Gorfisa. Elizarenkova, Taťjana Ja. 1987. Vedijskij jazyk. Moskva: Nauka. Erhart, Adolf. 1982. Indoevropské jazyky. Srovnávací fonologie a morfologie. Praha: Academia. Erhart, Adolf. 1993. Die indogermanische Nominalflexion und ihre Genese. Innsbruck: IBS 73. EWAI = Mayrhofer, Mannfred 1986n. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, I-III. Heidelberg: Winter. Gamkrelidze, Tamas V. & Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. (1984). Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Tbilisi: Izdateľstvo Tbilisskogo universiteta. In English: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: a reconstruction and histori- cal analysis. Berlin 1995: Mouton de Gruyter. GHL = Hoffner, Harry A. jr. & Melchert, H. Craig. 2008. A Grammar of Hittite Language, Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Hajnal, Ivo. 1995. Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hajnal, Ivo. 2003. Methodische Vorbemerkungen zu einer Palaeolinguistik des Balkanraums. In Bammesberger, Alfred & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Languages in Prehistoric Europe, 117-145. Heidelberg: Winter. w Hamp, Eric P. 1979. Indo-European *g en-Ha. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93. 1-7. Hamp, Eric P. 1981. Indo-European *(He)op-. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40. 39-60. Hamp, Eric P. 1987. Varia. Études Celtiques 24. 185-189. Hamp, Eric P. 1994. The Laryngeal Heteroclites. In Bielmeier, Roland & Stempel, Reinhard (eds.), Indoger- manica et Caucasica. Festschrift für K.H. Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, 35-40. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hamp, Eric P. 1996. Varia II: 1. On the Old Irish dat. sg. in *+mi. Ériu 47. 209. Haudry, Jean. 1982. Prehistoire de la flexion nominale indo-européenne. Lyon: Institut d’études indo-europée- nnes de l’Université Jean Moulin (Lyon III). HEG = Puhvel, Jaan. 1984n. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoffmann, Karl & Forssman, Bernhard. 1996. Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck: IBS 84. Klingenschmitt, Gerd. 1992. Die lateinische Nominalflexion. In Panagl, Oswald & Krisch, Thomas (eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Salzburg, Sept. 1986). Innsbruck: IBS 64, 89-135. Klingenschmitt, Gerd. 1994. Das Tocharische in indogermanischer Sicht. In Schlerath, B. (ed.), Tocharisch (Ak- ten des Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, sept. 1990), 310-411. Reykjavík: TIES Suppl. Series, Vol. 4. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978. On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European. Lingua 45. 281-300. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1984/2003. Proto-Armenian case endings. In International symposium on Armenian linguistics. Erevan: Akademija nauk Armjanskoj SSR, 97-106 / Armeniaca. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 45-56. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2002. The Indo-Uralic Verb. In Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Proceedings of the Symposium at the University of Groningen (Nov. 2001). Maastricht: Shaker (Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2), 217-227. Krahe, Hans. 1948. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Gotischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Krasuxin, Konstantin G. 2004. Vvedenie v indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie. Moskva: Akademija. Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. Evolution of Case Systems. In Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: University Press, 439-457. Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 2001[1998-2000]. La tuile de Châteaubleau (Seine-et-Marne). Études celtiques 34. 57-115. LEIA = Joseph Vendryes & Pierre-Yves Lambert. 1959-96. Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies – Paris: CNRS Éditions. Lejeune, Michel. 1971. Lepontica. Études celtiques 12. 356-500.

LG = La langue gauloise2, par Pierre-Yves Lambert. 2003. Paris: Errance. Macdonell, Arthur A. 1916[2000]. A Vedic Grammar for Students. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. LP LVII (2) Indo-European nominal o-stemsand question of their origin 15

Machek, Václav. 1968. Etymologický slovník jazyka českého. Praha: Academia. Mayrhofer, Mannfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik I.2.: Lautlehre [Segmentale Phonologie des Indoger- manischen]. Heidelberg: Winter. Mažiulis, Vytautas. 2004. Prūsų kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Melchert, H. Craig. 2012. Genitive Case and Possessive Adjective in Anatolian. In Orioles V. (ed.), Studi in ri- cordo. Linguistica storica e teorica per Roberto Gusmani, Vol. II, tomo 1, 273-286. Meriggi, Piero. 1980. Schizzo gramaticale delľAnatolico. Roma: Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Mem- orie: Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Serie VIII, Volume XXIV, Fasc. 3. MLH = Wodtko, Dagmar & Untermann, Jürgen. Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum IV: Die tartessischen, keltiberischen und lusitanischen Inschriften. MLM = de Simone, Carlo & Marchesini Simona. 2002. Monumenta Linguae Messapicae, I-II. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Nikolaev, Alexander. 2000. PIE ergativity and the Genitive in *osyo. In Jones-Bley, K. & Huld, M.E. & Della Volpe, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 293-309. Wash- ington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series No. 35). NIL = Wodtko, Dagmar S. & Irslinger, Britta & Schneider, Carolin. 2008. Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Olsen, Birgit A. 1999. The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and Word-Formation. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Otrębski, Jan. 1956. Gramatyka języka litewskiego, Vol. III: Nauka o formach. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnic- two Naukowe. Pedersen, Holger. 1907. Neues und nachträgliches. KZ 40. 129-217. Pedersen, Holger. 1926. La cinquième déclinaison latine. København: Høst & Søn. Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1989. Introduction au tokharien. Paris: LALIES (Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature 7). Pokorny, Julius. 1925. Altirische Grammatik. Berlin–Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Rasmussen, Jens E. 1987. Aspirated tenues and Indo-European phonation series. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 20. 81-109. Rasmussen, Jens E. 1989. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Innsbruck: IBS 55. Rasmussen, Jens E. 1999. Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics, I-II. Copenhagen: Museum Tuscula- num, University of Copenhagen. Ringe, Don. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: University Press. Rix, Helmut. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt: Wissen- schaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Savčenko, Aleksej N. 1974. Sravniteľnaja grammatika indoevropejskix jazykov. Moskva: Vysšaja škola. Schindler, Jochem. 1975. L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70. 1-10. Schmalstieg, William R. 1997. The Origin of the Neuter Nominative-Accusative Singular In *-OM. Journal of Indo-European Studies 25. 401-407. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1981. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit Sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Inns- bruck: IBS 32. Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press. Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1985. Strukturelle Probleme der indogermanischen Flexion. Prinzipien und Modellfälle. In Schlerath, Bernfried & Rittner, V. (eds.), Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Berlin, Februar 1983), 515-533. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Szinnyei, Josef. 1910. Finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig: Göschen. Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A Grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.

Tichy, Eva. 2004. Indogermanistisches Grundwissen für Studierende sprachwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen2. Bre- men: Hempen (1st edition 1999). 16 Václav Blažek LP LVII (2)

Tremblay, Xavier. 2004. Die Ablautstufe des Lokativs der akrostatistischen Nomina. In Hyllested, Adam et al. (eds.), Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens E. Rasmussen, 573-590. Innsbruck: IBS 112. UB = Urbanová, Daniela & Blažek, Václav. 2008. Národy starověké Itále, jejich jazyky a písma. Brno: Host. de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Watkins, Calvert. 1997. Luvo-Hittite :lapan(a)-. In Disterheft, D. et al. (eds.), Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel, Part I, 29-35. Washington D.C.